
Class r^ g S 

li(.<.k^_9-5^: 



SMITIISONI.VN l)i:i'()Sll 



KANSAS--THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. JOHN J. CRITTENDEN, 



OF KENTUCKY, 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



MARCH 17, 1858. 



[CORRECTED BY HIMSELF.] 



1 1 



Jl^ , 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

C. W. FENTON, PRINTER, AMERICAN OFFICE, 

185«. 



SPEECH OF MR. CRITTENDEN. 



The Senate having under consideration the hill to 

admit Kansas into the Union as a State — 

Mr. CRITTENDEN said : 

I feel how inadequate I am, Mr. President, to 
add anything to the various arguments that have 
been employed on this subject during the long dis- 
cussion through which we have passed; and yet I 
should not perform my duty, according to my views, 
if I omitted to express my sentiments and feelings 
on the subject before the Senate. I do not intend 
to occupy your time with exordiums, sir. The right 
of the people to govern themselves is the great prin- 
ciple upon which our Government and otir insti- 
tutions all depend. It seems to me that this great 
principle is involved in the present subject. 

The President of the United States communi- 
cated to us an instrument called the constitution of 
the people of the Territory of Kansas, and he has, 
with unusual earnestness, advised andrecommended 
to us to admit Kansas under that constitution, as 
a State into this Union. The question, as it has 
presented itself to my mind, involves an inquiry 
as to the matters of fact bearing upon this instru- 
ment of wriiing, and whether these authorize us to 
regard this instrument as the constitution of the 
people of Kansas. Is it their constitution? Does 
it embody their will ? Does it come here under 
such sanctions that we are obliged to regard it, or 
ought to regard it, as the permanent, fundamental 
law and constitution of this new State? I do not 
think it comes with such a sanction, or ought to be 
regarded as the constitution of the people of Kan- 
sas. Sir, I shall not occupy your time long on this 
point. 

What are the evidences that it is so ? It is made 
by a convention, to be sure, called under the au- 
thority of an act of the Legislature of Kansas. It 
is made by delegates regularly elected by this peo- 
ple, and prima facie it would appear that it had 
the sanction of the people of Kansas; but I think 
there are evidences of a higher character to show 
that it is not so, that it is but in appearance a con- 
stitution, and not in reality. 

In the first place, the fact is established bevond 
all controversy that an overwhelming majority of 
the people of Kansas are opposed to this instru- 
ment as their constitution. The two highest offi- 
cers of the Federal Government lately there under 
appointment from the President of the United 
States, Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton, 
both assure us of that fact upon their personal 
knowledge. That is high evidence to establish the 



fact that it is against the will of an overwhelming 
majority of the people upon whom it is to be im- 
posed as a constitution. 

That constitution in part was submitted to the 
people. I shall not stop now to inquire how it 
was submitted, whether fairly or not. A part of 
it was submitted, however, and, upon a vote taken 
by the people on the clause thus submitted, it 
received six thousand votes, and a little more. 
These are the sanctions with which it comes to 
us. To this extent, it would seem to have the 
popular approbation. But, sir, when you come to 
look a litte further into the investigations which 
have taken place in that Territory, it appears that 
of those six thousand votes, about three thousand 
were fictitious and fraudulent. That is reported 
to us by the minority reports of our Committee on 
Territories ; that is verified to us by the procla- 
mation issued by the President of the Council and 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 
Territorial Legislature of Kansas. These high offi- 
cials, who were invited by Mr. Calhoun to witness 
the counting of the votes which were returned to 
him, certify from their personal knowledge that 
more than two thousand of the three thousand 
votes which were given at three precincts in the 
counties of Johnson and Leavenworth were ficti- 
tious votes. I only call your attention to this in 
order that it may appear truthfully who it was that 
approved of this constitution. 

That vote was taken on the 21st of December. 
Before that vote was taken, however, a Legisla- 
ture, which was elected in October last, and which 
met on the call of the acting Governor, Mr. Stan- 
ton, in December, passed an act postponing that 
vote from the 21st of December to the 4th of Jan- 
uary. On the 4th of January, under the provis- 
ions of that act, a question was taken upon the 
constitution itself broadly. It provided that the 
question should be taken upon the Lecompton 
constitution with slavery, upon the Lecompton 
constitution without slavery, and generally upon 
the constitution itself Upon that occasion, over 
ten thousand voted against the constitution ; and 
the Legislature of the Territory of Kansas have 
passed resolutions unanimously protesting against 
the reception by Congress of this instrument as 
the constitution of the State, declaring that it was 
obtained by fraud, and that it has not the sanction 
or concurrence of any, except a small minority of 
the people. This is the substance of their reso- 
lutions. 

Now, I ask you, sir, upon this evidence, as a 



judge, to say whether this is the constitution of 
the people of Kansas or not? whether the evi- 
dence before you is that it is an instiument,signi- 
fylng their will and declaring that general and per- 
manent law upon which they wish their govern- 
ment to be founded? Unless you shut your eyes 
to the vote taken on the 4th of January, here is 
a direct popular evidence and protest against the 
constitution ; and, even supposing the whole of 
the six thousand votes which were given for it on 
the 21st of December to be true and real votes, 
fairly expressed, it shows that there were ten thou- 
sand other people in the Territory of Kansas who 
are opposed to this instrument and who have legit- 
imately declared their opposition. Here is the 
solemn act of the Legislature of the Territory pro- 
testing against it. These are recorded evidences, as 
much 80 as the constitution itself is a record, having 
the same legal sanctions and the same legal title to 
our faith and our confidence. How are you, in 
law, to make any difference between these testi- 
monials; to say that you will give effect to one and 
will reject the other; that you will give effect to 
that which testifies for the minority of the people, 
and will reject that which testifies for tlie majority 
of the people; that you will accept that which was 
first given, and reject the last expressions of the 
popular will? 

It is these las^t expressions of the popular will 
that ought to govern on every principle, just as 
much as that a former law must yield to a subse- 
quent law in any point of conflict between them. 
The last evidence, then, is the vote of the people 
on the 4th of January, of ten thousand against it ; 
and the evidence neaily cotr-mporaneous with that 
are the resclutions of the Legislature of Kansas, 
protesting and imploring you not to accept this 
instrument, that it is a fraud and an imposition 
upon them. I want to know why it is that this 
evidence is not entitled to our consideration and 
to have effect? The President, it seems to me, 
has given us a most unsatisfactory reason. The 
President says that in recommending, the adop- 
tion of this constitution to us, as implied in the 
admission of the State, he has not overlooked the 
vote of ten thousand against the constitution given 
upon the 4th of January ; he has considered it ; 
but he holds it, and he holds the law of tlie Territo- 
rial Legislature under which that vote was taken, 
to be mere nullities. Why ? The law was passed 
by the regularly elected Legislature of the Terri- 
tory providing that a vote should be taken ou that 
day ; and why not? Is there anything in the or- 
ganic law, is there anything anywhere that forbids 
it? No ; nothing. 

The President had anticipated that the consti- 
tution itself, in whole, and not in part, was to be 
submitted to the people. The Governor had so 
contemplated, and had so assured and promised 
the people. The President regrets that it was 
only submitted in part. He regrets tiiat the entire 
constitution was not submitted. Though he ac- 
cepts as an equivalent the partial submission, he 
regrets that it was not submitted as a whole. 

_ The Territorial Legislature, after this constitu- 
tion was published, immediately passed a law to 
have a vote taken upon the entire constitution — 
the very course which the President had preferred, 
and to which Jlr. Walker pledged himself. What 



do they do but carry out and act in perfect accord- 
ance with the wishes and opinions of the Presi- 
dent and Governor? And yet the President, who 
was for a general submission, and would have pre- 
ferred it, says the act of tlie Legislature, in accord- 
ance with his opinion, is a mere nullity. Why? 
Because, he says, by the previous acts of the peo- 
ple and of the territorial government the Territory 
was so far prepared for admission into the Union 
as a St .te. That is the reason. He gives no ap- 
plication of it, but announces as a reason that it 
was so far prepared because the constitution had 
been made, ready to be offered to Congress, though 
that constitution had not yet been submitted to 
the people when this law was passed. That was 
her condition ; that was the preparation she had 
made. The only preparation was, that under the 
authority of a previous Territorial Legislature, a 
convention had been held, and a constitution made 
and published. 

That was the condition of her preparation ; and, 
because of that preparation, the President says 
that the Territorial Legislature had no power 
whatever to pass a law to take a popular vote 
upon the adoption of that constitution, to see 
what the people thought of it ; to collect the evi- 
dence of the public will! What could the Terri- 
torial Legislature do, to satisfy themselves, to 
satisfy the country, to satisfy the just rights of 
the people, but to say a vote shall betaken on the 
4th of January next, in which all the people shall 
di clare their assent to, or disapprobation of, this 
constitution as an entire instrument? What is 
there in the preparation above referred to to pre- 
vent it? What force had the constitution? 
Gould the constitution, unaccepted by you, un- 
authorized by you, paralyze and annihilate the 
legislative power which your act of Congress 
had conferred upon the territorial government? 
Does not that power, and all that power, remain 
as perfect as when you granted it? And could 
the power which your act gave be diminished or 
lessened by any act of mere territorial authority? 
It is palpable that it could not. No matter what 
act might be done by the people of Kansas, call it 
by what name you please — law of the Territorial 
Legislature, constitution made by the people — no 
matter by what name you call it — the supremacy 
of the Government of the United States remains 
untouched and' unimpaired, and all the power of 
territorial legislation which it gave may be exer- 
cised by the Legislature. 

Of what avail is this constitution until accepted 
by Congress, and the State admitted upon it? 
Whom does it l»ind ? Is it anything more than a 
proposition by the people of Kansas that "we shall 
be admitted with this instrument, which we offer 
as our constitution ? " What more is it ? Does it 
bind anybody? Where does it derive its author- 
ity ? The organic law authorized no legislation by 
a convention. The convention could exercise no 
legislative power which Congress had given, be- 
cause Congress gave its power to a Territorial 
Legislature, to be elected in a certain manner, and 
to be exercised in a certain manner. The conven- 
tion could exercise no legislative power. It bound 
no one. It did not bind the future State; for, until 
you accepted it, what prevented the people from 
calling a convention the next day, and altering or 



modifying it according to their own views? Is 
there anything of reason, of argument, or of law, 
to support such a proposition as that the people 
are restrained from nialiing another constitution 
because they have proposed one not yet accepted 
and acted upon by Congress? I think not. 

In my judgment, we have- a precedent which 
shows I am right in this view of the subject. The 
case is this : Wisconsin, then under a territorial 
government, presented herself here with a State 
constitution, and asked for admission into the 
Union as a State. Congress admitted her, but on 
the condition that her constitution should be sub- 
mitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the 
Territory — and, if assented to by the people, that 
the President shouid announce that fact by procla- 
mation, and that thereupon, and without any fur- 
ther proceedings on the part of Congress, her ad- 
mission should be complete and absolute. This 
was the case of Wisconsin ; this her state of prep- 
aration. What, under these circumstances, did 
the people of Wisconsin do? Did they proceed 
according to this act of Congress, and submit their 
constitution again to the people, as required by 
said act? No, sir ; they passed that act by, cdlle'd 
another convention, apphed to Congress at a sub- 
sequent session, and were admitted into the Union 
as a State. 

Was bot their state of preparation greater than 
the preparation of the Territory ef Kansas? Here 
Wisconsin was not only in a state of preparation, 
by having made a constitution, but that constitu- 
tion had received the approbation of Congress, 
and she had been conditionally admitted into the 
Union as a State. Yet she considered that even 
under these circumstances, she was at full liberty 
to avail herself, or not to avail herself, of that con- 
ditional admission — and concluding not to decline 
it, she made another constitution, and was there- 
upon admitted by Congress. 

If they could do that, if, prepared as they were, 
that preparation did not preclude them from making 
another constitution, how is this less state of prep- 
aration, on the part of Kansas, to preclude the Ter- 
ritorial legislature, not from performing the high 
act of calling a convention, but simply of taking 
another vote on a constitution which was yet to 
bo proposed to Congress? Can any reason be 
shown ? No, sir, none. That constitution was, in j 
my judgment, inoperative ; and of gentlemen who ! 
think diflerently I would ask, how long would I 
it have operated as binding on the people of Kan- ! 
sas? Suppose circumstances had occurred which 
had prevented any application to Congress for 
years, how long would this instrument have re- 
-tained its vitality and retained its vigor and au- 
thority? One year? Two years? Three years? 
Four years? How long? Suppose the president, 
Calhoun, had put this instrument in his pocket 
and kept it there all the days of his life, would 
it all the days of his life have restrained the people 
of Kansas from taking other steps and calling 
other conventions, and making other constitutions ? 
If its authority would not have continued a life- 
time, how long could it continue ? No man can 
set a limit ; and the conclusion, therefore, is that it 
never had any binding influence — at any rate, 
never such binding iutiuence (and that is all I am 



required to show) as to have prevented the peo- 
ple, if they had changed their minds after making 
the first constitution, from calling another con- 
vention, and resorting to all means necessary for 
the establishment of another constitution, and then 
to offer it to you. It is theirs to offer, and ours 
to dispose of, and they are free up to the last mo- 
ment to make known to Congress what is their 
will and what is their determination in relation to 
the fund .mental law of the State which they are 
about to establish. 

Is not this all perfectly clear to our reason ? 
Are there any fictions of law; are there any tech- 
nicalities springing out of these instruments, gov- 
erning their foics and effect, to prevent this con- 
clusion ? Is this constitution to be made up into 
a little plea of estoppel against the people? Are 
the little rules which we are to gather from West- 
minister Hall, the little saws in actions at law 
that do well enough to decide little questions of 
meum and tuum among A, B, and C, to be applied 
as the measure to those great and sovereign prin- 
ciples on which States and peoples rest for their 
rights and their liberties? No, sir. This is a 
great political question, open, free to be judged of 
according to God's truth and the rights of the 
people unrestrained, unencumbered, unimpaired 
by any fiction or by any technicality which could 
prevent the full scope of your justice and your rea- 
son over the whole subject. 

Therefore, sir, this state of preparation of the 
Territory of Kansas for admission into the Union 
has no effect. The argument is not applied ; the 
fact is merely stated that there is a state of prepa- 
ration, and there it would be necessary to stop on 
any doctrine ; for, in my own judgment, no argu- 
ment can be made even of any ordinary plausi- 
bility to show that the state of preparation re- 
strains the people of their natural and indefeasible 
right and their legal right as proclaimed by you, 
to form with perfect freedom fhoir own institutions 
befiue they come into the Union. There is no 
technicality about it. 

Here, it seems to me, applies that great princi- 
ple to which I adverted at first, that the people 
have a right to govern themselves. I mean, of 
course, in subordination to constitution and law. 
This people had no constitution, could have no 
constitution, while they remained in territorial 
dependence ; and when the act of the Territorial 
Legislature was passed requiring a vote to be 
taken on this proposed constitution, they had full 
authority to pass that law. Their hands were not 
bound. Here was a great act about to be done, an 
act to bind the State, to give it a new character, 
to give it new institutions, to put upon it. a con- 
stitution—that panoply of the rights 6f all. This 
was the great act to be done ; it is an act which 
none but the people can do through themselves or 
their proper representatives. It is in all cases di- 
rectly or by reference the act of the people. The 
laws which they establish are not of that transient 
character which can be made to-day and repealed 
tomorrow. They are made for permanency. They 
are the great immutable and eternal truthsaud prin- 
ciples on which all government must rest. They 
are expected to be permanent. The people dele- 
gate to others the power of passing temporary and 
repealable laws. They reserve to themselves the 



great right of passing those which are permanent 
and can only be repealed by themselves. 

Was it not of coiifsequence, was 11 not of import- 
ance to know the will of the people, whether they 
really did approve of this constitution which was 
about to be oft'ered to Congress — a law which, 
when Congress puts ita imprimatur on it by ad- 
mitting the State, is to be permanent ? Would it 
be any harm to take the vote over and over again, 
60 long as doubt remains? Congress has the 
power. What objection could there be to it? You 
may say " It is an unnecessary care of the peo- 
ple's rights ; jou have had their decision once ; 
therefore, it is not necessary to have it again ;" 
but out of abundant care, and abundant zeal you 
may choose to take it again and again, and ascer- 
tain whether there may be change or variation in 
the public opinion. Who can say aught against 
it? Do you object to it because it is takiiig too 
great care of public liberty, paying too great re- 
spect to popular rights ? Nobody will take that 
ground. 

But it may be said you might delay the appli- 
cation to Congress by these repeated elections. — 
You must avuid that as far as you can. In 
this case it has not delayed it. In this case 
this vote was taken before this constitution came 
before you ; while it yet slumbered in the hands of 
President Calhoun. No objection can be made, 
then, that this was made the cause of, or intended 
merely for the purpose of delay. The result shows 
that it was nccesf ary and proper. The result shows 
that notwithstanding the vote of six thousand, 
in favor of it, there were ten thousand who were 
opposed to it I say, therefore, this is not the 
constitution of the people of Kansas. It may in a 
certain sense be a constitu'ion offered by the con- 
vention to the people of Kansas ; but which the 
people of Kansas by ten thousand majority have 
rrjected, have as lawfully rojeeted in the last vote, 
as it was lawfully appi oved by the six thousand first 
voting in the preceding December. 

I say, then, Mr. President, upon the record evi- 
deJice,' upon all the evidence, this is not the con- 
stitution of the people of Kansas. It ia not the 
constitution under which they desire tliat you 
shall admit them into the Union. Now, will you, 
against their will, force them into the Union under 
a constitution which they dii^approve? That is 
the question. You know the fact that ten thou- 
sand against six thousand are opposed to the con- 
stitution. You know that by the act of their Ter- 
ritorial Legislature they entreat you not to admit 
them with this constitution. They tell you, more- 
over, as one of their reasons, not only that they 
disapprove of the whole constitution, but that it is 
particularly hateful to them because the votes given 
for it, or apparently given for it, were, to a great 
extent, fraudulent and fictitious. The Legislature 
tells you that nine-tenths of the people there are 
opposed to it. 

Now, would it not be strange, that under these 
circumstancts, we should, without any motive for 
it that I know of, as the common arbiters of all 
Territories and States to the extent of our consti- 
tutional power, for ce her into the Union ? What 
motive can we have, what right motive, with the 
knowledge of these facts, to force her into the 
Union, and to enforce upon her this constitution ? 



I cannot feel myself authorized to do such a thing. 
Of course I do not impugn the motives and the 
views of others, who, taking a difierent view, act 
from impressions different from mine. They act 
upon one view, and I upon another; but, viewing 
the subject as I do, it seems to me that to do this 
is a plain, unmistakable violation of the right of the 
people to govern tfiemselves. 

I have endeavored to show you, sir, that this 
is not the constitution of the people of Kansas, 
according to the recorded evidence of their will. 
It seems to me, furthermore, that this constitution 
is a fraud. It is not only not their constitution, 
according to their will, but it is got up and made 
in fraud, to deprive them of their rights. I believe 
that, and I think it can be shown. 

The President of the United States has furnished 
us an argument on this subject, and it has been 
oftentimes repeated hei e in the debate — of course 
a plausible and ingenious argunnmt, as all must 
admit, even those who deny the solidity of the 
reasoning. What . is the argument ? The Presi- 
dent says that the sense of the people was taken, 
and proved to be in favor of calling a convention. 
The convention was called; delegates were elected; 
those delegates made a constitution ; that consti- 
tution was submitted to the people in part, and 
approved by a vote of six thousand, taken accord- 
ing to law. Well, all theFC, you will observe, con- 
stitute a tissue, a long series of little legalities, reg- 
ularities, and technicalities ; and the reasoning of 
the President is founded on technical points on 
each of these facts. You must admit all the facts. 
Yes, sir, the facts are all true ; and if they alone 
constituted the case, the conclosion would be fair 
and light that this constitution has been regularly 
made ; that this constitution has been sanctioned 
by the people as well as by the convention. But 
is there no more in the case than this ? There is 
a great deal more in the case than this. 

When frauds have been alleged and charged 
against this government of Kansas, gentlemen say, 
"Ah, but these frauds were in other elections ; 
ihese frauds do not particularly and specifically 
touch this constitution, or the proceedings which 
led to this constitution." But suppose there were 
fi auds in relation to it : is it not something if I show 
you that, in regard to that part of the constitution 
which was submitted to the people to be ratified 
by them, and which was nothing until the people 
had ratified it even according to the constitution 
itself, there was fraud in that election, and abun- 
dance of fraud ? So glaring, so impudent, and so 
fearless had frauds in elections become tuere, that 
upon that very poll list, in one of the precincts, (I 
forget whether it was in Oxford, or Shawnee, or 
that other precinct that emulates these in its char- 
acter for fraud, Kickapoo,) you find that the Pres- 
ident of the United States, Colonel Benton, and 
the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Seward,] 
were there, it seems, or fictitious votes were put 
in for them by somebody, and a long list of persons 
of that sort of figure on the poll-book at these mis- 
erable precincts as actual voters. That was the 
vote on the coustitution on December 21; that 
was on the part submitted to the people. They 
were the constitution making power there, and 
there I show you the fraud. 

What further frauds there were I know not; 



but this much is apparent — and later develop- 
ments show greater frauds still — that in one single 
precinct, where there were only thirty or forty 
votes to be taken legitimately, there were over 
twelve hundred ; and under the investigation lately 
made by commissioners in Kansas, tha*; upon 
sworn testimony is stated to be the fact. In one 
precinct there were twelve hundred fraudulent and 
fictitious votes out of twelve hundred and sixty; 
seveu hundred in another, and over six hundred 
in another ; making in the aggregate twenty-six 
hundred votes in three precincts, entirely fraud- 
ulent and fictitious, written out by hundreds on 
the poll-book after the election was over, put on 
without scruple upon the poll-book, upon the 
election return, put down without scruple during 
the election, of those who were qualified, and 
those who were not qualified ; and that is the way 
this constiution in part has received its sanction. 
But, sir, I think that we should take a very 
partial view of this subject, one very unsatisfac- 
tory to our judgment, if we were to isolate these 
facts which have direct relation only to the form- 
ation of this constitution, and leave out all the 
surrounding circumstances. It seems to me that 
the proper and the just mode of regarding this 
constitution is to consider it as one of a series of 
acts, and see if we can find that the whole action 
and operation of all those acts were to lead to one 
general purpose — that of maintaining by fraud 
and by falsehood the power and the government 
of the minority, and their offices to them against 
the will of the great majority of the voters. I say 
it is an act connected with all the other acts. The 
whole case is to be taken, and every part of it 
judged of in this connection. 

Now, what was the first act? That is histor- 
ical. We may all speak of it now, though we 
disputed it at the time. The first Legislature that 
was elected in Kansas under the organic act, was 
not elected by the people of Kansas. It was elect- 
ed by persons who were intruders from abroad — 
who intruded themselves with arms in their 
hands, seized upon the ballot-boxes, put in their 
own ballots, driving away the legitimate voters, 
and elected the members to the Legislature. That 
is the way the government of Kansas was inau- 
gurated. Those who had been driven from the polls, 
those who were opposed to the party that was 
installed in power by these mtans, conceived 
such indignation and such disgust that they pro- 
claimed aloud, whether wisely or unwisely, that they 
renounced all obedience to this spurious govern- 
ment, as they called it. It is not material to me 
whether their complaints are well founded and 
true, or not. I am endeavoring to depict the 
course of things, to show their motives and the 
motives of the persons who were tlius installed 
into the territorial government. They came to 
their power by violence; they came to their power 
by fraud. That was the complaint of the oppos- 
ing party in Kansas. They renounced their rule, 
they renounced their laws, refused to commit 
themselves in any way to their support, refused 
to go to any election afterwards. They said, 
"What is the use? This corrupt minority who 
have got into power, who have in their hands the 
means of controlling the election, who are not too 
good to do it, and who will do it, who have done 



it, will practice the same means; we shall be again 
driven from the polls, or, if not, they, having the 
control of the elections, and of all the officers who 
conduct and manage them, will have what returns 
made they please. We will subject ourselves no 
more to the humiliation of attempting to execute 
a right which we know will be frustrated and 
defeated by fraud, or by force." Under these im- 
preetions, and with these feelings, which it is not 
my part here either to justify or rebuke, but 
simply to state the fact, they withdrew from the 
elections lest, by voting according to the laws 
passed by this corrupt Legislature, as they con- 
sidered it, they should seem to acknowledge its 
authority and their allegiance to it. 

Now, what would be the condition of the men 
who had been installed into power in this way ? 
They would be pleased that their opponents had 
thus withdrawn themselves from the polls. In all 
the elections to be held afterwards, this power of 
the minority, however small, would be continued ; 
as their enemies would not come up to vote, they 
would be re-elected and would retain and pei petu- 
ate their power. So they went on — the field aban- 
doned by the majority — and the minority ruling 
everything in this way. Look at the evidences that 
are before you from those high officers lately return- 
ed from Kansas — Stanton and "Walker. They tell 
you of frauds regularly perpetrated there ; and, 
although they had thought before that the people 
were acting factiously, that they were acting sedi- 
tiously, that they were acting rebelliously in at- 
tempting to withdraw themselves from this gov- 
ernment altogether and to act for themselves, and 
that their complaints of fraud and imposition upon 
them in elections were rather aft'ected for the pur- 
pose of giving color to their conduct than other- 
wise, yet when they went among the people and 
heard them, and learned all about the dealings that 
had been practiced, they could not doubt their 
truth and their sincerity in the resentment which 
they felt and in the conduct which they pursued. 
However unwise, it was sincere on their part. — 
They had been defrauded ; they had wrongs enough 
to sting and humiliate them. This is what these 
officers say. I know nothing about it ; we know 
nothing about it, except on the testimony. That the 
ruling minority party were capable of "committing 
fraud, we know. They began in fraud. Has any gen- 
tleman here denied, is there any gentleman who 
discredits the history which we all have of the 
frauds practiced in the first election that was held 
in Kansas? However we might doubt this, how- 
ever we might have disagreed, however we might 
have believed or disbelieved heretofore, have not 
every mist and doubt been cleared away from 
around this fact, and is there one here now to say 
that the right of election was not trodden down 
in the first election for a Territorial Legislature in 
Kansas, and that a minority government was not 
elected ? That they have continued that govern- 
ment by fiaud since, is ehowu at every step of 
their progress. 

It was in the midst of this self suspension of the 
right of suffrage on the part of their opponents, 
that they called the convention by which this con- 
stitution was made. Look at the constitution it- 
self. On its own face, does it not contain the am- 
plest preparation for fraud, visible and apparent ? 



8 



Look at the internal evidence marked on its face. 
They pass by all the sworn officials of the territo- 
rial government who had before conducted elec- 
tions — they authorized, by the schedule to the 
constitution, President Calhoun to take this whole 
matter into his hands, to appoint the officers to 
conduct the elections, giving him control over that 
official body, and the appointment of them all; 
and the returns were not to be made to any per- 
manent officer of the government, not to the Gov- 
ernor, but to this same Mr. Calhoun. He was to 
appoint the officers to conduct the election, receive 
the returns, count the ballots, and declare the re- 
sult. "Well, Mr. Calhoun has performed all this 
business ! 

Another thing: .every human being, in respect 
to that part of the constitution which was sub- 
mitted to the people, before he could vote for or 
against it, was required to swear that he would 
support that constitution when it was adopted. In 
that constitution, those who framed it well knew 
were provisions intolerable to all the free-State 
men in the Territory, and they would not swear to 
support it. They so believed and hoped and ex- 
pected. This was under the show of a fair elec- 
tion. Not only have they secured all the advant- 
ao-es resulting from the appointment of the officers 
to conduct it, but, to leave their consciences more 
easy, these officers were not even sworn. There 
was no provision for that. But every man voting 
for the constitution, or that part of it submitted to 
him to vote upon, was required to be sworn be- 
forehand that he would support that constitution. 
This, it was supposed, if nothing else, would keep 
off the free-State men. 

It is said, in this testimony, that Governor Walker, 
from the time he went there, had been diligently 
persuading all the people of the Territory to throw 
aside this inaction of theirs, come into the elec- 
tions, and participate in the Government. For 
this, Mr. Stanton says. Governor Walker became 
the object of utter hostility to Mr. Calhoim's party. 
They did not want conciliation. They demanded, 
asthe same witness says, repression. They wanted 
penalty, not persuasion. They did not know what 
the result of this persuasion might be in the elec- 
tions afterwar'ls to take place on the constitution. 
It was necessary, therefore, to m.ike provision 
against the possible effect of these persuasions 
and arguments of Governor Walker ; it was, there- 
fore, necessary to put in, though nobody opposed 
them, six thousand votes for the constitution, they 
believing that that was a majority of the greatest 
number of votes ever given on any occasion in 
the Territory, and so it is stated here. They just 
went beyond the line; and for fear of rendering it 
more monstrous, and the fraud more vi^tible, they 
went just so far as the necessity demanded the 
fraud. They did not choose to use it superfluously. 
They rather husbanded it, to be used as the occa- 
sion'might require, and no more than was required. 
I cannot shut my eyes to this fact. These prepa- 
rations, then, in the schedule of the constitution, 
were made in anticipation of the vague dangers 
that were apprehended. It was greatly important 
to carry through this constitution, greatly import- 
ant to "preserve their authority under the consti- 
tution. There were two Senators of the United 
States to be elected. All the officers of the State 



government were to be constituted. These were 
to be the reward of those who had labored. 

These seem to me to be preparations made for 
fraud ; and when I come to compare them with 
the action which took place afterwards, the design 
and the act, the purpose and fulfillment of it, make 
the proof perfect. The means of doing it, the 
means of facilitating it, are given in the constitu- 
tion. The actual perpetration of it afterwards at 
the polls is seen. It is seen in the election upon 
the constitution. It is seen in the election of the 
4th of January, for officers under the new consti- 
tution. There is where these frauds, lately devel- 
oped, were practised to such an enormous extent. 
There is where these little precincts distinguished 
themselves. 

Another fact may be noticed, that this conven- 
tion to make a constitution were to meet, by law, 
in September, and go to their work. They met 
then. Did they go to work ? No. Why did 
they not ? There was an election of the Territo- 
rial Legislature to take place in the October fol- 
lowing. They wanted to know the result of that 
election ; to know how tie land lay ; whether all 
was safe or rot ; whether any point was necessary 
to be guarded in the constitution ; whether there 
were any unexpected majorities rising up ; whether 
there were any obstructions in the way of ordi- 
nary frauds. They wanted to see what was the 
character of the new Legislature, that they might 
meet the emergency and meet the exigency with 
any constitutional provision that might be neces- 
sary to perpetuate their power. They therefore 
adjourned to a day after the election. The Le- 
gislature was elected ; and that Legislature turned 
out, notwithstanding all the frauds that were 
practiced, to be against them. What then? The 
Legislature being against them, now what is thepro- 
vi^jion they made in the constitution? The officers 
of election, and other officers of the Government, 
were, many of them, appointed by the Territorial 
Legislature. They thought, "Now, here has come 
in, in October,a Legislature opposed to us. What 
so likely but that they who have complained of 
frauds from Government officials, will now change 
the officers and change the mode of election ?" 
What then? They declare in the schedule that 
all who are in office now, shall hold their offices ; 
that all the laws in existence now, shall continue 
in existence until repealed by a Legislature which 
shall meet under the State organization under the 
constitution. That silences completely the Ter- 
ritorial Legislature, and paralyzes its power. That 
was a security against them, and left the conven- 
tion and its party to take the chances at the 
future election to be held, by their officials, on 
the 4th day of January last, as provided by them, 
and then they were to make another final death- 
struggle for supremacy ; and then, indeed, they did. 
I have seen the report of the commissioners lately 
appointed by the Territorial Legislature of Kan- 
sas to investigate the frauds. There this Gov- 
ernmenr party did make efl'orts more than worthy 
of all thoir former practices in fraud, in order to 
secure the Legislature, which, under the constitu- 
tion, would make Senators ( f the United States. 
It was here that Oxford, that Shawnee, that Kick- 
apoo, distinguished themselves in the multiplicity 
of votes, feigned and fraudulent. 



9 



When you see such things as these in the con- 
stitution, when you see such things as these 
all around the con>titution, when you see the same 
men who made the constitution rulers in the land 
during the whole time, do you not see that the 
frauds have been everywhere, that the imposition 
upon the people has been everywhere ? And how 
can you exempt t'lom the contagion (if there was 
nothing moie than this general association from 
which to ii^fer it) this constitution and those who 
made it? Judging from the positive internal evi- 
dence that exi-ts in it, and the facts that surround 
it, I cannot. I believe that to impose it upon them, 
violates the right of the people to govern them- 
selves. I believe this constitution is the work ot 
fraud — fraud upon the rights of the people. 

I do not undertake to defend the free-soilers for 
their conduct. It is not my part nor my province. 
I should agiee, perhaps, with the President, that 
much of their conduct has been of a disreputable, 
disorderly, and seditious character. It may be 
that it deserves 'the epithet of "rebellion," which 
the President applies to it. I have nothing to do 
with that. I am not their advocate. I have dis- 
approved of their conduct in many instances. There 
were many bad men among them, as I believe, but 
for them "the law assigns its proper punishment. 
The majority of the people have their political 
rights, that remain, notwithstanding their legal 
oti'enses. It is in that point of view, it is in their 
political character as the people cf a Territory, 
that we are now to regard them. Whether they 
be more or less guilty on one side or the other, is 
not the question. I ^ea^ that neither party could 
take the chair of impartiality and justice, and be 
shameless enough to attempt to administer re- 
buke to theothi.r. 

One great o^>jection to their admission at all, is 
that they have not shown, by their conduct on any 
side, that they are altogether lit for association 
with the States of this Union. A little more ap- 
prenticeship, a little more practice of honest and 
fair dealing, a little more spirit of submission and 
subordination to Uw and authority, would be 
well learned by them, and fit and qualify them 
much better tor citizens of the United States. 
That is my opitiion. I have, however, spoken of 
their political lights as men, and it is not for nie to 
sit in judgment to condemn and deprive them of 
the right ot suft'iage on one side or the other, be- 
cause of frauds committed by one, or violence 
practiced by anoiher. This is a political question. 
It is said, however, that the series of legalities 
and technicalitie?, to which I have alluded, of a 
regular election, of a regular convention, of a sub- 
mission to the people, and of votes of the people 
upon all these questions, have been regular; and 
what then? it is further said, on the ottier 
side, that all the people had a right to vote 
and those who did not vote forfeited their right to 
complain; and we aie not to inquire whether there 
wore any people who did not vote, or whether 
those who did vote voted fairly, and were entitled 
to vote or not. It is sai I we are precluded by the 
forms in which t'is tianaction is enveloped; that 
the formal election, the fomal certificate of elec- 
tion, the formal constitution certified — these form- 
alities are enough for us, and that we are not per- 
mitted to look further ; that we ought not to look 



further. Sir, I do not think so. We a'-e applied 
to now to admit a new State into the Union. The 
instrument which she presents as her constitution 
is opposed by the people from the same Territory. 
They say, " this is not our constitution ; it ia 
against our will ; it is not only against our -will, 
but it has been imposed upon us by devices and 
fraud. It is void for fraud. If it is not void for 
fraud, for that is rather a legal than a political 
term, we present these frauds and this opposition 
as a reason why you should not admit our Ter- 
ritory into the Union under this constitution." 

Tliat is the state of the question before you. 
The complainants admit all the regularities just aa 
the President states them. Perhaps they admit 
the effect these forms would ordinarily have, bat 
they urge other facts in opposition to the apparent 
evidence of the constitution itself, as I have be- 
fore adverted to. A majority of the people have 
protested against it. The present Legislature, by 
its inquiries, have developed the vast frauds which 
woie practiced in connection with, and in rela- 
tion to, this constitution. They say, "do not ac- 
cept it ; do not admit us under it ; send it ba ok ; 
let it be submitted to a fair vote of the peop le." 
Sir, upon such a complaint as this, are we not 
bound, in justice to that people, to examine the 
whole case ? Can any Senator turn away and 
refuse to look at the testimony that is offered? 
Can he be justified in so doing by naked legal pre- 
sumptions against positive truth? 

Do not suppose that I would discard all formali- 
ties, or the fair presumptions resulting from them. 
In many cases, and to many of the transactions 
of society, especially to your courts of justice, 
they are necessary, and they subserve the pur- 
poses of justice. They were not made to sacri- 
fice justice, but to uphold it and maintain it 
and protect it as an armor. That is the proper 
business of forms — not to crush down justice, 
but to pi omote it. We are not now sitting here 
governed by any technicalities. This is a grand 
national political tiibunal, to judge according to 
our sense of policy and our sense of justice. That 
is our high province — not to be controlled by pre- 
sumptions of law when we can have the naked 
truth. It is the truth that ought to guide ; and 
for that we ought to look wherever we can find it ; 
and where you find the truth on one side, and the 
fiction on the other, which is to be followed, the 
truth or the fiction? I take the fact; I take the 
truth ; let the fiction return to those tribunals 
which are by law made subject to it. This is a 
question above that sort of argument. It is in- 
quirable into. Else how can we judge that it is 
their constitution? It is the fist time, I believe, 
that such a question has ever come up in the Sen- 
ate of the United States. In all former applica- 
tions for admission, there has been one thing about 
which there has been no question; and that was, 
the willingness to be admitted, and the constitu- 
tion under which they desired to be admitted. 
There has been no question about the authenticity 
of a constitution, or about its expressing the true 
will of the people heretofore, that I know of. I am 
satisfied there has been none ; but now that there 
is, we must inquire into the authenticity of the 
instrument offered to us; we must inquire whether 
it is better, on full consideration, to admit this 



10 



instniment and the State with it or not; and, in 
the exercise of that judgment, we are bound to 
look abroad for the truth "wherever we can find it. 
I think, ther. fore, th^se matters are all fairly sub- 
ject to our consideration. 

Mr. President, convinced as I am from these 
imperfect views of tho evidence in the case, that 
this instrument is not really the constitution ot the 
people of Kansas, ordesiredby them to be accepted 
by you in their admission into the Union ; believ- 
ing that it is not their constitution ; and believing 
moreover, as I verily do, that it is made in fraud 
and for a fraud; believing that these matters are 
inquirable into by us, and that the inquiry has led 
us to ab.iiidant light on this subject, I cannot, I 
-will not vote for it. Viewing it as I do, with the 
opinions I entertain, I could not con sent to her ad- 
mission without violating my sense of right and jus- 
tice; and I would submit to any consequence before 
I would do that. 

Now, sir, what considerations are there, apart 
from these which I have stated, which could lead 
me to give, or could compensate me for giving, a 
vote against my sense of what was right acd just? 
What advantage to our whole country, or to any 
portion of it, is to result from taking Kansas into 
the Union now with this constitution? Is anything 
to be gained ? Is the South or the North to gain 
anything by it? I see nothing to be gained by it. 
I think there is not a gentleman here who believes 
that Kansas will be a slave State. Before this ter- 
ritorial government was made, many of the leading 
men of the South here argued that Kansas and 
Nebraska never could be slave States. By the law 
of climate and geography, it was said, they could 
not. So said my friend from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] 
and BO said Mr. Stephens. 

Mr. TOOMBS. Never. 

Mr. HALE. Mr. Badger said so. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. Mr. Keitt and Mr. 
Brooks, of South Carolina, said so. The opinion 
was expressed by numerous southern gentlemen 
that Kansas could never be a slave State. It was 
for the principle that they contended; and the prin- 
ciple, the abstract principle, was a just one; 
namely, the right of the people of the Territories, 
when forming a State government, for admission 
into the Union, to frame for themselves such a le- 
pnblican constitution as they pleased, either ex- 
cluding or admitting slavery. 

Mr. HAMMOND. With the permission of the 
Senator, I will ask him, "Did I undeistand him to 
Bay that Mr. Keitt had declared Kansas never 
•would be a slave State ?" 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. Yes, sir; so it is report- 
ed. Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, said : 

" Does any man believe that you will have a slave- 
holding State in Kansas or Nebraska ?" 

Governor Brown, of Mississippi, said: 

" That slavery would never find a resting place in 
those Territories." 

Mr. Douglas said: 

" I do not believe there is a man in Congress who 
thinks it could be permanently a slaveholuing coun- 
try." 

Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, said : 

" I have no more idea of seeing a slave popu'ation 

in either of them than I have of seeing it in Massa- 

chuBetts." 



Mr. MiLLSON, of Virginia, said : 

" No one expects it. No one dreams that slavery 
will be established there." 

Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, of Tennessee, said: 
" The fears of northern gentlemen arc wholly un- 
founded. Slavery will not be established in Kansas 
and JNebraska." 

The late Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina said, in 
his speech of the 15th of March, 1854: 

" If the natural laws of cUmateand of soil exclude 
us from a territory of which we are the joint owners, 
we shall not and we will not complain. 

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina said, on the 2d of 
March, 1854 : 

" If two States should ever come into the Union 
from them, [the Territories,] it is very certain that 
not more than one of them could, in any possible 
event, be a slave-holding State ; and I have not the 
least idea that even one would be." 

Mr. Keitt, of South Carolina, in his speech of 
the 3nth March, 1854, quoted Mr." I'inckney, of his 
own State, that — 

" Practically, he thought slavery would not go 
above the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes 
by the laws of physical geography, and therefore, 
that the South lost no territory tit for slavery." 

This is all the authority I have. 

Mr. GREEN. I wish to inquire what book the 
Senator reads from. What is the title of it ? 

Mr. CRITTEiNDEN. It seems to bo a book 
written with the most downright Democratic pro- 
pensities and purposes. [Laughter.] It is " An 
Appeal to the Democracy of the- South, by a south- 
ern State-Rights Democrat." [Laughter.] 

Mr. MASON. I suppose the pamphlet is anony- 
mous. No name is given. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MASON. The name of the writer of the 
pamphlet is not given. 

■Jr. CRITTE>fDEN. Will the gentleman take 
it? It contains a great deal of good Democratic 
reading. [Laughter.] The writer of it thought 
he was doing great service to the Democratic 
party. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I wish to say that Mr. Keitt 
quoted that passage from Mr. Pinckney's speech 
on tlie Missouri question, which had been quoted 
on the opposite side of the case previously. His 
object in quoting it was to show that Mr. Pinckney 
did not support the Missouri compromise upon 
principle, but he did not indorse the sentiments 
expressed by Mr. Pickney in that extract. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. I accept the explanation. 
Certainly I had no' intention to misrepresent any 
gentleman by reading the statements expressed in 
this pamphlet. I say it was not anticipated from the 
first that Kansas would be a slave-holding State. 
What is the South to gain now by having it admit- 
ted? It may gain a triumph in the admission of this 
constitution— admitted against the will of the majo- 
rity of the people. It is a triumph, but is it not a 
barcn one ? Is it a triumph worthy of the South ? 
It will produce nothing but increased bitterness 
and exasperation, perhaps, on the part of those 
against whose will it is forced, not onlv in the 
Territory, butelsewhere. Itmaygivc new'exasper- 
ation to the slavery question ; new agitation, which 
God forbid. It would be a victory without results, 



11 



without profit, barren, sterile: — as to all the ordi- 
nary and beneficial fruits, there is none. I do not 
know how anything is to be gained to the South, 
supposing, as I verily believe, and as every gen- 
tleman here believes, that it cannot be a slave 
State; tbat there is a majority there opposed 
to it, and who will put it down. Pass this, 
and we may have a few years longer of exasperated 
struggle and exasperated agitation in the country. 
That is all the consequence of the barren victory 
which would be obtained by admitting Kansas with 
this constitution. That is not a fruit, I think, which 
any one would wish to gather. Now, if you attempt 
to inforce it, we are told by Mr. VV alker — I know 
nothing about it, but from all that he and Mr. 
Stanton tell us, and they are Democratic witnesses 
— there is danger of resistance and danger of rebel- 
lion. 

Where is the necessity, then, for our doing it 
now ? Can we not resort to some other me.ins by 
which we may avoid all these consequences of 
exasperation, cf danger, of resistance, of tumult, 
or of agitation, upou this suVyect ; and end this 
contest in a short time by authorizing the people 
of Kansas, under the high mandate of this Gov- 
ernment, to form for themselves a constitution, 
if they want to come into this Union — a constitu- 
tion fairly to be made, and fairly to express the 
will of the people It defers the subject but a 
little while. Is it not better to do that; is it not 
better to suffer the evils we have, than to fly to 
others we know not of? I think eveiy prudential 
consideration is in favor of our forbearing to en- 
force this constitution on the people of Kansas, 
and of our affording them an opportunity of making 
their views fully and perfectly uaderstood. This 
will be in accordance with the generous principles 
and policy that the South has pursued heretofore. 

The Kansas-Nebraska bill was recommended 
to the South, chiefly, by the repeal of the Mis- 
souri compromifC, and the recognition of the 
right of the people of a Territory, when framing 
a constitution of State government for them- 
selves, to be " perfectly free" to frame it as they 
pleased — admitting or excluding slavery, and reg- 
ulating their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the constitution of the United 
States. 

Every citizen has an equal interest and right in 
Territories belonging to the people of the United 
States; and the result of this equal right seeus to 
me, to be, that, where there is no positive law to 
the contrary, any citizen may lawfully carry his 
slaves into those Territories, and may lawfully hold 
them. They were his slaves in the State from 
which he emigrated, and must remain his, till di- 
vested of his right, by law — ^just as an apprentice, 
under the same circumstances, remains bound to 
his master. 

My opinion is, that the repeal of the Missouri 
compromise was a blunder; but I concur in the 
principle that the people of our Territories, wh( n 
they come to form a constitution for themselves, 
have a right to form it as they please. I am now 
acting upon that groat principle of popular rights. 
I feel myself bound to give the benefit of it to the 
people of Kansas. Let the majority make such a 
constitution as they please. That is the great Amer 
rican principle, that rises above all others. Let 



them govern themselves, and as the majority de- 
cide, so let the constitution and so let the laws be. I 
think we are infracting that great principle — the 
principle of the South itself, on this very identical 
subject, by forcing this constitution, at least of 
doubtful authenticity, upon the people. If there is 
a majority in favor of it, it is not much trouble for 
them to ratify it. If there is a majority opposed 
to it, they are entitled to have their will and their 
way. They are entitled to that upon principle; 
they are entitled to it by the express pledges of 
the Kansas-Nebraska law. 

Sir, I feel that I have already occupied a great 
deal of your time — more than I was entitled or 
expected to do ; and yet there are some general 
topics upon which I wish to say something, though 
not so immediately connected with the direct 
question before us. 

Mr. President, I am, according to the denomi- 
nations now usually employed by parties in this 
country, a southern man. I have lived all my life 
in a southern State. I have been accustomed from 
my childhood to that frame of society of which 
slavery forms a part. I am, so far as regards the 
necessary defense of the rights of the South, as 
prompt and as ready to defend them as any man 
the wide South contains; but in the same resolute 
and determined spirit in which I would defend 
any invasion of its rights, and for which I would 
put my foot as far as he who went furthest, I will 
concede to others their rights, and I will maintain 
and assert them. He who knows how to value 
his own rights will respect the rights of others. 

When the Missouri compromise was abolished, 
great fears were excited in the North, and some 
vague hopes entertained in the South, that slavery 
might be established in Kansas, and extended in 
that direction. I did not believe it. I believed that 
the Missouri compromise line fixed in 1820, was 
about that territorial line, north of which slavery, 
if it could exist, would not be profitably employed ; 
and our experience since has shown that the wise 
men who made that compromise judged rightly. 
I believed that the idea of making Kansas a slave 
State was a delusion to the South ; that her hopes 
would never be realized, if she entertained such a 
hope as that. I thought, therefore, it would have 
been better, without examining scrupulously into 
its constitutionality, to let the Missouri compro- 
mise stand. I regretted its repeal. I did not be- 
lieve the South would gain anything by it, or that 
the North would gain by it. 

That compromise was a bond and assurance of 
peace. I would not have disturbed it. It was 
hallowed in my estimition by the memory of 
the men who had made it. It was hallowed by 
the beneficial consequences that resulted from it. 
It was hailed, at the time it was made, by the 
South. It produced good, and nothing but good, 
from that time. Often have you, sir, [addressing 
Mr. Toombs,] and I, and all of the old Whig par- 
ty, triumphed in that act as one of the great 
achievements of our leader, Henry Clay. It was 
from that, among other things, that he derived the 
proudest of all his titles — that of the pacificator 
and peace- maker of his country. We ascribed to 
him a great instrumentality in the passage of that 
law, and over and over ngain have I claimed credit 
and honor for him for this act. This, for thirty 



12 



years, had been my steadfast opinion. I have 
been growing, perhaps, during that time, a little 
older, and am a little less susceptible of new im- 
pressions and novel opinions. I cannot lay aside 
the idea that the law which made that line of di- 
vision was a constitutional one. I believed so 
then. The people since have generally believed 
it. I must be permitted to retain that opinion 
still; to go on, at any rate, to my end with the 
hope that I have not been praising, and have not 
been claiming credit for others for violating the 
Constitution of their country. 

Sir, the men who passed that measure were 
great men ; they were far-seeing men. Without 
argumiH-t now, I am content to rest my faith upon 
the authority of those great men — Clay, Pinckney, 
Lowndes, President Monroe, 'he last of the patri- 
archs of the Revolution, with his learned and 
able Cabinet — and then, what is more than all, 
thirty-five years of acquiescence in it, and peace 
under i1, in these States. Whatever quarrels you 
may have had about it in Congress, there was al- 
ways enough to uphold and sustain that law; and 
never, until 1854, was it repealed, or its constitu- 
tionality questioned, that I know of. I regretted 
its repeal, because I feared that it would lead to 
new agitations and new dangers. Has it not? 
What has been our experience? 

The authors of the measure which repealed that 
compromise — lionorable and patriotic I know them 
to be, many of them my personal friends — prom- 
ised themselves from it greater peace and greater 
repose by localizing the slavery question, as it was 
said. This act was to localize the question of 
slavery, and all agitation was to be at an end. 
It was to give peace to the country. The Presi- 
dent in his message at the commencement of 
this session, or in his special message — I do not 
know which — imagines the country to have been 
in gi'eat agitation on the subject of slavery, when 
the Kansas-Nebraska act came and put a stop to 
it until, some time afterwards, it was revived. 
Why, sir, exactly the contrary seems to me to 
be the true history of the transaction. We were 
becoming tranquilizcd under the compromises of 
1850 in addition to the Missouri compromise; 
all was subsiding into submission and acqui- 
escence, when, to obtain a greater degree of 
peace and secure us for the future against all 
agitation, this bill of 1854 repealing the Missouri 
compromise was passed. What has it produced ? 
Has it localized the question of slavery ? Has it 
given us peace ? All can answer that question. 
It has given us anything but a cessation of agita- 
tion. It has given us trouble, nothing but trouble. 
That has been the consequence of it so far. 

I am as anxious now us any man here to close 
vp this scene. I would vote for the admission of 
Kansas upon almost any terms that would give 
peace and ()uiGt. If I thought this bill would do 
80, 1 should vote for it. I would suppress all scru- 
ples for the sake of that peace. If I was sure 
such would be its result, I would vote for it, think- 
ing myself justified bylhe price that was to be 
paid — the peace of my country and the restora 
tion of good will among my felltte-citizens. I 
do not hope for it. I fear further nlrouble. We 
are again told that this will have the effect of 
localizing the question of slavery, and that we 



shall be no more troubled with it ; that the mis- 
chief and clamor, and agitation will all be confined 
to the limits of Kansas. This is the same hope 
that was disappointed when the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill was passed. The same h(«pe was indulged in 
then, and since then there has been nothing here 
but agitation on the subject increasing with every 
day. 

Again, we have the idea of localizing it pre- 
sented. Now, sir, if it is to be debated anywhere, 
it will be debated here ; and, perhaps, if it is to 
be debated anywhere, it is best that it should be 
debated here ; because we might hope, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that in this body it would be debated with a 
spirit of moderation and conciliation that would 
deprive it of many mischievous consequences if it 
were agitated and debated among men without our 
years, without our rosponsibilitics, and without 
the restraints which our condition and our know- 
ledge impose upon us. Even here we do not de- 
bate it in the right way. We allow ourselves to 
become too much excited about it. To this great 
country, what is Kansas and this Kansas question, 
and the two or three hundred slaves who are there, 
that y(>u and I and all the American Senate should 
be here day and night, and using such language of 
vituperation and invective on this subject as we 
often do ? Look at our great country, and the 
great subjects which claim our attention as her 
legislators ; look at them all in their majesty and 
their magnitude, and then say, how little, pitiful, in 
comparison, is the question about which we are 
making so much strife and contention. 

On this subject, and on many others, it seems to 
me that it becomes us, of all the citizens of this 
great Republic, to set to our fellow-citizens ex- 
amples of moderation and conciliation. What 
good does the mutual charge of aggression, ofiten 
fiercely repeated? What good do these invec- 
tives? Especially let me say to my friends of 
the North, why iudulge in invectives of the most 
reproachful character, upon those who, in four- 
teen or fifteen States of this great country, are 
slaveholders? Does that give you any cause to 
traduce them? Can you not live content with 
the institutions which please you better, and leave 
these fellow-citizens, who have just the same right 
to adopt slavery that you have your institutions, 
to enjoy their liberty in peace also? Is there any- 
thing in the difference of our institutions which 
ought to make us inimical to one another? How 
was it with our fathers ? Did not they live to- 
gether in peace and harmony? Did not they fight 
together? Did not they legislate together ? Did 
they ever abuse and reproach each other about the 
question of slavery? Never, that I have read of. 
Why is it that we cannot do as they did? Have 
we degenerated from those fathers, or Uave we 
erown so much better and purer than they were? 
I doubt whether we are any better; and 1 do not 
believe, notwithstanding all that is said about 
progress, that we are at all more sensible than 
those fathers who made the Constitution of the 
United States, and laid the foundation of this 
great Government. They gave us an example of 
brotherhood ; and when we look at all that con- 
nects us, all that unites and makes us one people, 
how much more powerful would its influence seem 
to be to connect us together, than the question of 






13 



slavery and anti-slavery to divide us? We are 
united by circumstances of which we cannot liivest 
ourselves. We are united iu language, in blood, 
in country, in all the memories of tl^e past, in all 
the hopes of the future. This is our connection, 
leading and pointing to the brightest destiny that 
ever awaited any people. All the unnumbered 
blessings of the future are in full prospect; but 
there is this little, this comparatively small matter 
of contention, that we seem disposed to nurse up 
into continual occasion for philippics and for re- 
proaches. This is not the right temper with which 
to regard the subject. Crimination and recrimi- 
nation is not the way to strengthen our Union — 
that Union of brotherhood, of good will, of co- 
operation for all great national purposes, which 
cur fathers formed. 

I was gratified to hear comparisons made of the 
mighty resources of the different sections of this 
country. It was a proud exhibition. The honor- 
able Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hammokd] 
gave us, in a very interesting and eloquent manner, 
the mighty resources of the Soutli. They are be- 
yond estimate — beyond calculation. This is re- 
plied to by a gentleman from the North, who give? 
us the mighty resources and the mighty power of 
New England and the non-slaveholding States. 
Well, sir, if the conclusion which might be drawn 
from it was true, that each of those sections would 
by itself make a mighty country and a country 
that any one of us might be proud of, what a 
magnificent country is made when we put it all 
together! What a magnificent abode f'T man, 
such as the Almighty never gave to any other peo- 
ple, and never placed on the surface of this earth! 

It seems to me the most natural union in the 
world — the South, with her great and her rich 
productions, whi e the North abounds with inge- 
nuity, labo , mechanical skill, navigation, and com- 
merce. The very diversity of our resources is the 
natural cause of union between us. It would oat 
do for us all to make cotton, nor would it do for us 
all to work in your manufactories. Nature seems 
to have organized here this country, adapted to a 
union of people North and South. Nature has 
given her sanction to the Union. Nature has 
traced that Union, and you alone disturb it. Gen- 
tlemen, you alone disturb it by making this subject 
of slavery the cause of dissension. The dissen- 
sion has been kept up, though we but seldom come 
to any practical question that calls upon us to 
act on the subject. Now, if we were through with 
this petty Kansas affair, what a summer sea of 
boimdless expanse lies before us, where there is 
nothing but repose. There is no other territory 
that you can dispute about in my lifetime, or the 
lifetime of any man here. This is the last point 
on which a controversy can probably be made. 
We have gone through many difficulties on this 
subject. Now we have reached the last of it, 
the least of it. Let us settle this matter in 
peace; let us settle it in good temper; and I 
see nothing before us but a long period of repose, 
and, I hope, of mutual conciliation. Of one thing 
I am certain, that crimination and recrimination 
between the North and the South, the getting up 
aud maintaining of sectional feeling, sectional pas- 
sion, sectional prejudices, can do no good to any 
section; and there is not one Senator here who 



does not recognize and feel all this as much as I 
do. I am certain of it. 

My vote on this subject, sir, has nothing sec- 
tional in it. The only difficulty I have in voting 
is, that this is regarded by some as a sectional 
question ; and I am on one side of that section, 
and I am voting for the other s'de of it, if we 
divide on it as a sectional question. Now, I do 
not regard it as a sectional question. My alle- 
giance is not to any particular section. I do not 
want to know any such thing as a section in my 
conduct here. I want to be governed by a consti- 
tutional spirit, and a constitutional and a just 
principle, in all I do, no matter whether it relates 
to the North or to the South. I do not want to 
increase the sectionality which exists in the coun- 
try by placing myself or my vote upon it so far 
as regards this question. I want to wipe out that 
sectionalism. I wish that no one here would vote 
upon it as a sectioual question. I do not. I vote 
upon it as a Senator of the United States of Amer- 
ica. That is my country, and my great country. 
The Constitution of the United States intended to 
wipe out all these lines of division and section- 
alism. It is we, we, that disturb our own Union. 
It is we that make sections; it is we that make 
sectional lines to divide and distract the country, 
whose Constitution, whose present interest, whose 
future hopes, all tend to unite us. 

There are some doctrines which have been ad- 
vanced here with which I disagree, and upon 
which I will briefly express my views. Some gen- 
tlemen have argued, and tbey have the authority 
of the President to sustain them, that the Kansas- 
Nebraska act gave all the authority that is usu- 
ally conferred by what is called an enabling act on 
the people of a Territory. I never considered in 
so. I do not believe it is to be considered so. Some 
gentlemen, on the other hand, maintain that, un- 
der the Kansas-Nebraska act, the convention were 
bound to submit the constitution to the people for 
the popular suffi age ; indeed, that it is the right of 
the people to have every convention submit every 
constitution to them. I do not agree to that doc- 
trine. The people are too sovereign to be required 
to do that. They can confer upon a convention 
the power to make a constitution that shall be good 
without reference to any other power. The sov- 
ereignty over the Territory is in this Government. 
It bel mgs to the people of the United States, one 
and all. The people of the States own it ; and 
they are the real sovereigns of the Territory, and 
we, as their representatives. They have no more 
power in the Territory than we give. They have 
no government but what we give. It is not in the 
nature of things that they should have. All squat- 
ter sovereignties, and sovereignties of all sorts, 
vanish before the sovereignty of the people of the 
United States. 

But the President says, in reference to this Kan- 
sas constitution, that although it contains a pro- 
vision that after 18G4 a convention may be called 
to change it, the poople can, nevertheless, change 
it before that time. That is to say, the people, by 
thinr " irresistible" power can at any time, notwith- 
standing the provisions of their constitution to the 
contrary, change it as they please. Sir, the Presi- 
dent of the United States is very high authority; 
but it is, in my humble judgment, a very dangerous 



14 



4? 



doctrine and a very untrue one. The people can- 
not bind themselves by a constitution ! I thought 
that was one of the great virtues and purposes ofa 
constitution. We admit them to be sovereign. 
Why cannot they make what sort ofa constitution 
they please ? The constitution which sovereignty 
makes, in all its parts and in all its purposes, must 
be the rule of conduct for all. It cannot be abol- 
ished, except in the manner prescribed and pointed 
out in the constitution itself, if any manner is pre- 
sciibed. 

If the President's doctrine on this subject be 
true, what becomes of the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States? Instead of following the mode of amend- 
ment prescribed in the Constitution, the people, by 
their 'irresistible' power, may in any other manner, 
at any time, change the whole fi-ame of our Govern- 
ment. There is not a State constitution in the 
Union that does not impose some restraint as to 
the manner of change. What would a constitution 
be if it were just as liable to change as any ordi- 
nary act of the Legislature? It would lose its 
character. Those who talk to the people about the 
unlimited and illimitable power they possess are 
teaching a dangerous doctiine. That is a sort of 
sovereignty which the people cannot exercise. It 
may be made very flattering to their ears, but it is 
impracticable in the nature of things. It cannot 
be exercised at all. The people must exercise their 
sovereignty through agencies. They must exercise 
it through representatives and governments ; they 
only exercise it safely through constitutions. If 
they could not make constitutions bind themselves 
their sovereignty never would be safe. If it were 
not invested in a constitution, it would be con- 
stantly escaping into the hands of some of those 
gentlemen who could talk most eloquently to the 
people about their irresistible sovereignty. That 
would be the end of that sort of sovereignty in the 
people. 

The people must understand that their sover- 
eignty, their practical sovereignty, is to be exercised 



through representatives and delegates, over whom 
they are to hold the proper control; and to hold 
that contrel, and to fix and make permanent and 
operative their sovereignty, they must put it in the 
form of a constitution. That is the only security for 
popular sovereignty. Therein it exists, and therein 
alone can it exist practically. It is not true that the 
people cannot bind themselves, and are not bound, 
by the restrictions of their constitution. They may 
rebel against their own constitution; they may 
violate their own law and constitution, ^st as they 
could violate the law or constitution of any other 
people ; but it does not follow that, because they 
could do that, they have not created a political 
obligation on themselves by a constitution only to 
amend that instrument in the guarded, temperate, 
gradual method which the constitution may have 
provided for and prescribed. 

Sir, I am sorry to have occupied the time of the 
Senate so long. I can say, with the President of 
the United States, that on this important occasion 
I have endeavored to do my duty, with a full sense 
of my responsibility to my God and to my country. 
Under the conviction that the best results to be 
obtained under the present circumstances, unless 
some material amendment can be made to the bill, 
will be attained by rejecting this constitntiou, I 
shall give my vote against it ; but so anxious am I 
to conclude this subject, that I intend, before it is 
finally acted upon by the Senate, to propose an 
amendment. This would not be the proper time 
to offer it ; I am not prepared now to offer it : but 
the effect of it will be to admit Kansas into the 
Union upon condition that this constitution of hers 
be submitted to a fair vote of the qualified elec- 
tors of Kansas, to be ratified by them ; and if so 
ratified, the President, on information of the fact, 
shall proclaim it a State of the Union without fur- 
ther proceedings; and, if it be not ratified, to 
have a new constitutional convention convened. 
My amendment will be an enabling act ia effect, 
but admitting Kansas for the present. 



MR. CRITTENDEN'S REJOINDER TO MR. TOOMBS. 



Mr. CRITTENDEN". I purpose to occupy a few | 
moments to correct a mistake which I believe is 
rendered necessary by the remarks of ray friend 
from Georgia. I have listened to him with great 
pleasure, and have cause to thank him for much 
that he has said. 

I knew, sir, that Mr. Clay was not the author of 
tbe Missouri compromise ; I knew that he did not 
draw the bill ; but I knew from his own declara- 
tions in conversation, and in his speeches that he 
did approve and concur in its passage. He gave 
it his sanction. He thought there was notliing 
unconstitutional in it. I have been brought up 
in the opinion that it was not only constitutional, but 
one of the most beneficial acts that had ever been 
passed by Congress. It produced you, sir, a reve- 
nue of peace and good-will among the people of 
the United States, and that is above all price. 
Whatever sanction it may have failed to derive 
from the names of the great men who passed it, it 
has received abundantly fiom the people of the 
United States, who, for the thirty odd years that 
it remained on our statute book, gave i'. their ap- 
proval and support. During all that period it gave 
peace to the country. It was for that I valued it. 

I haiVed that compromise when it was first made. 
I have cherished it ever since. It had become 
fixed in my mind, as part and parcel of our politi- 
cal system. I regarded Mr. Clay, as did the whole 
country, as entitled to the credit of that great 
measure. And it was for this tliat his countrymen 
conferred upon him the proudest and the noblest 
of his titles — the pacificator of his country. 

Sir, I have not been ablej to cast away these 
impressions. I admit the SupremeCourt to be 
the great arbiter, as the gentleman asserts, and 
while I differ from it, I do not the less admit its 
constitutional and supreme power in all the matters 
that come within its jurisdiction, and I am not 
wanting in confidence and respect for it. But yet 
we cannot always yield up our long-settled convic- 
tions, even to the authority of that high tribunal. 
I find myself now in that condition, and I must be 
permitted to retain the opinion long established in 
niy mind, that the Missouri compromise was a con- 
Uitutional act. 

My friend [Mr. Toombs] has said that some gen- 
tleaien seemed disposed to give no confidence 
wha>ever to the action of any of the Territorial 
LegiSqtures of Kansas until they fell into the 
hands of the Black Republicans. Certainly he 
cannot 'ntend such an imputation for me ? [Mr. 
Toombs signified by a shake of the head that he did 
not.] I regard it merely as the Legislature of the 
Territory — the actual Legislature. How its mem- 
bers may be divided in politics, I do not know; nor 
do I care ; nor was it at all material for my pur- 
pose. It is enough for me that it is the Legislature 



of the Territory, and that it appointed a vote to be 
taken upon this constitution on the 4th of January. 
The vote was taken, and the result was as reported 
to us. I have heard nothing to impeach that vote, 
nor any single fact alleged against it. The result 
of it was a majority of ten thousand against tho 
constitution. Certainly those ten thousand have 
at least as good a right to be claimed against it aa 
the six thousand returned as having voted on the 
21st of December, have to be counted in favor of 
it. That was my object. It was to show that 
there was a majority against this instrument, and 
assuming all this action to be equally legitimate, 
the members of the convention had no more right 
to order a vote to be taken by the people on any 
part of the constitution than the Territorial Leg- 
islature bad to order an election to be takea 
on the whole constitution. Both proceeded 
from organized recognised bodies, one the Legis- 
lature, the other the convention. When, there- 
fore, the common appeal is made to us, and the 
constitution is brought before us, it seems to me 
that we ought equally to take into consideration 
both these facts. Furthermore, I adverted to the 
evidence going to show that from the six thousand 
in favor of the constitution there were many spu- 
rious and fraudulent votes to be deducted. 

Mr. President, I acknowledge that forms are not 
only useful, but, in many cases, necessary. I agree 
that if at an election two-thirds of the people stay 
away from mere apathy or negligence, the votes of 
those who do act, and do vote, must be effectual, 
and must control. I agree, also, that the retura 
is a necessary form, and that the revision of that 
return is subject only to the particular authority 
appointed for it, and when that is done, there is an 
end of the case — because there is no further tri- 
bunal to which an appeal can be taken ; but I sup- 
posed and argued that when this constitution was 
presented before us, the supreme power, called 
upon now to recognize the validity of these acts — 
called upon to recognize what was the will of the 
people, in respect to them, we have a right to look 
to all the evidence, es well to that which is fur- 
nished in form as to that which impeaches it for 
fraud, 

I have spoken on these conclusions, and I shall 
act on them in voting against the acceptance of 
this Lecompton constitution. My friend, [Mr. 
Toombs] I have no doubt, in perfect sincerity, 
regrets that my conclusions have forced me to 
this course ; but I have followed my convictions, 
and I mean to do my duty as I understand it. I 
confess it is painful to me to differ with such a 
friend on any occasion so important as the present. 

Mr. President, I am not wanting, I think, ia 
those feelings of our nature which connect us witk 
our neighbors. Although we have a common coun- 



lt> 



try to look to, and ought to have a common patriot- 
ism which would embrace the whole, our natural af- 
fections and our natural feelings bind us more close- 
ly to those with whom we are more immediately as- 
sociated, to whom we are more nearly assimilated in 
manners -customs, and institutions — aye, peculiar 
instituti ns. I am not wanting in those sympathies ; 
but what is my duty as one belonging to a particu- 
lar section, by his nativity, and by his residence — 
what is my duty when a great question of this sort 
comes up? What is my duty to those neighbors, 
to whom by natural sympathies and affections I am 
most bound ? Is it not my duty in this house of our 
common councils to give the best counsel and ad- 
vice I can, or am I to inquire whether this is to be 
regarded as a sectional question, and follow what- 
ever course is indicated by a majority of its sec- 
tional members? Is it not rather my duty to my 
friends to give them the best counsel I can ? I want 
to see the South always right. How am I to ac- 
complish that? By advising always what my best 
judgment thinks is right, and endeavoring to pre- 
vail upon her to take that course. Is not that my 
duty? Is not that my duty to my common coun- 
try, and more especially is it not my duty to th )se 
with whomciicumstances raoie nearly connect me? 
I have done that. I should have been gratified if 
the South had taken the same view of this subject 
that I have. I am sure she would have lost noth- 
ing by it. The question of slavery is not in the 
case. I think there is not one gentleman here who 
entertains the hope that Kansas can ever be really 
a slave State. If it be made so, it will continue 
only for a moment, a little feverish moment, filled 
up with strife and angry controversy. No genile- 
raan here believes it will really and permanently be 
a slave State. There is nothing then to be gained 
by the South, as I regai d the subject. The element 
of slavery is only thrown in for the puipose of 
arousing feelling on the one side or the other. It 
is no real element in the question before us, be- 
cause no man has any hope that Kansas will be 
a slave State. We learn that from every soui ce. 
The hope of it was disclaimed before the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill was passed ; that view is now turned 
into conviction by all that has occurred since, and 
there is nobody who deceives himself so much, or 
•would deceive the South so much as to tell her 
that Kansas will be made a slave State by tlie 
adoption of this constitution, except it may be for 
that miserable and feverish period to which I have 
alluded, and which would be filled up in a struggle 
that could serve only to exasperate parties and 
make the contest there more fierce than it has been. 
If the South could have taken the view of the 
case which I have taken, it seems to me it would 
have been better for her. Then she would say, 
"the South scorns to take advantage of the little 
circumstances that might enable her to press her 
claims upon a reluctant and unwilling people — 
press the claim to impose slavery against their 
will ; we snatch at no such accidental advantages, 
we see that the question is determined partly by 
climate, and more certainly and decisively by the 
majority of the people ; the determination has 
been against slavery ; we stand up in our justice 
and in our honor always untarnished, and constitut- 
ing our great ftrength as Commonwealths and 
States ; and we tay we will iuake no strife about 



it. " If this element of slavery could be discharged 
out of the case, put out of our minds, put out of 
our debates, and we could look at this question 
as it is presented to us, I think there is no one 
here who would be willing to give his sanction to 
an insti-ument which is so stiined with fraud, and 
so manifestly in violation of the rights of the 
people of Kansas. 

Why need we of the South be impatient and 
anxious to hasten the admission of Kin-as into the 
Union? Whatever constitution you put upon 
them now will not last ; but you willhave two Sen- 
ators immediately from there. Should the South 
be in a hurry to have two more sneh Senators here 
as you would now get from there ? But these are 
small matters. If the South coul i vi-w this sub- 
ject as I do, if they could have looked at this con- 
stitution and the circumstances from which it had 
its origin, and those which atti nd i', as I do, they 
would have acted the very part wh'ch I have in- 
dicated ; they would take no ignoble advantage; 
they would occupy no ignoble position of .standing 
upon little points and nice estoppels. No, sir, the 
South would say — it is in her character, in her 
spirit to say so — we go upon great principles, and 
we go for the truth. Occupying thai position, she 
would have stood proudly erect, with justice and 
honor seated upon her brow. That is her natural 
and accustomed attitude, and in that attitude I 
love to contemplate her. 

Sir, gentlemen of the South fi om whom it is my 
misfortune to differ on this occasion, will do me 
gi'eat injustice to suppose that it was my purpose, 
in anything I have said, to question or impugn the 
purity of their motives. Tney but folh'W their 
honest convictions, as I follow mine. I have en- 
deavored to perform my duty as a Senator belong- 
ing to the same section; my opinion and advice 
have been given fraukly and independently; but, 
I hope without any presunrption. I devoutly 
hope that whatever measure be adopted, though 
contrary to my opinion, miy turn out to be that 
which is most beneficial to our couutiy. I choose 
to be in the wrong, rather than that my country 
should suffer from my error. 

I am neither of the Democratic nor of the Repub- 
lican party. I wear no party shackles. I am here as 
the Senator of "Old Kentucky" — l)rftve and noble 
old commonwealth. My ambition is to act in her 
spirit and by her inspiration. I did not come here 
to aot in the character of a parti.-an. Long service 
and experience in public affairs have divested me 
of much of the misconception, the prejudice and 
passion that belong to the parti an ; and upon 
lately taking my seat here, probably in the last 
term of my public service, it was my intention and 
my hope to act rather the part of a patriot than 
that of a party man. 

I am a true sou of the South ; may prosper^y 
fill all her borders, and sunshine forever rest ipoa 
her head. But for all this, I do not lov« the 
Union the less. I am a true eiii/en of the L'^nited 
States ; I claim the whole of it as my grei^t coun- 
ti-y; and for the preservation of that Uuijn which 
makes it so, I will always be ready to say and to 
do whatever in me lies. It is in this .'spirit, sir, 
that I have endeavored humbly to do my duty — 
my duty to the South, and my duty to the whole 
country. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



016 085 213 6 




•^ k 



